11 May 2026
No viable grounds were advanced to show error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decision or in the Deputy High Court Judge's refusal of leave; accordingly the appeal is dismissed.
30 Apr 2026
Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Applicant advanced no arguable legal grounds, challenged findings of primary fact-finders rather than identifying error of law or procedural unfairness, and the Board's Decision was lawful, procedurally fair and not irrational; therefore the proposed review had no realistic prospect of success.
24 Mar 2026
Extension of time was refused because the applicant filed out of time by a substantial period without explanation and the intended judicial review lacked a realistic prospect of success; the Director properly applied section 37ZO, considered previous findings and did not commit error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality, so leave was dismissed.
20 Mar 2026
The 1st applicant's leave application is dismissed because it was filed out of time and lacked an arguable case; the 2nd applicant was granted an extension of time and leave because the Board committed an error of law by failing to give separate consideration to the child's personal circumstances and claim, warranting leave to apply for judicial review while the Board's substantive findings concerning the 1st applicant were lawful and not irrational.
11 Mar 2026
The application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused because it was filed well beyond the statutory three-month period (filed over five years late), the applicant failed to advance any specific or arguable grounds showing error of law or procedural unfairness in the Board's decision, and therefore there was no realistic prospect of success warranting an extension of time or grant of leave.
3 Mar 2026
Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decision and therefore had no realistic prospect of success; the supervisory court will not re‑weigh the Board's fact findings where those findings do not disclose legal error.
23 Jan 2026
Leave was refused because the applicant failed to show any realistic prospect of success: her grounds were bare assertions without evidential support and the Board's decision on severity, state protection, BOR 2 and 3 engagement, persecution risk and internal relocation fell within its fact‑finding remit and did not disclose error of law, irrationality or procedural unfairness warranting judicial review.
5 Jan 2026
The leave application was dismissed because the applicant failed to plead any arguable public law grounds in the required Form 86 and the Board's decision, which rejected the applicant's claim for lack of credibility, disclosed no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality such as would justify interference on judicial review.
24 Dec 2025
The application for leave to apply for judicial review is dismissed because the applicant filed more than three years after the TCAB Decision with no acceptable explanation for undue delay and, on anxious scrutiny applying an enhanced Wednesbury standard, there are no reasonably arguable grounds of public law error, procedural unfairness or irrationality that would give the application a realistic prospect of success.
17 Dec 2025
Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable grounds in his Form 86, did not demonstrate any error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Board's decision, and the Board had correctly applied the law and observed a high standard of fairness; the applicant later sought withdrawal, and there was nothing outstanding requiring further proceedings.